Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

DairyQueen

Hands up all the supporters of OP who don't have children?

Yes, it was entirely the right of mum-in-law to allocate her estate as she wished. However, Wills are emotionally-charged documents. Nothing is more guaranteed to create friction amongst the children of the deceased than an unequal distribution amongst the siblings, or the inclusion of grandchildren as significant beneficiaries if the grandchildren are unequally distributed amongst the children.

My family has always followed the principle of 'each generation in turn'. The children of the deceased inherit the entire estate in equal shares. It's a cultural thing but the formula has helped maintain good family relationships throughout the generations. No surprises, no acrimony.

Parents of grandchildren have the option to gift down the generations from their share. Siblings have the option to allocate a bigger share to a brother/sister at their discretion. The important thing in our family is that the children of the deceased - the only named beneficiaries - make that decision.

A legacy of soured sibling relationships is a sad ending to a long and full life, and I doubt that was mum-in-law's intention.

I feel sorry for the OP's husband. He has been placed in a difficult position. It would have been far better had his late mum discussed her intentions with all of her children in her lifetime. His options:
- carry out the terms of mum's Will
- use a deed of variation to redirect a portion of his share to his sister.

Nether will solve the underlying problem as sister's beef isn't with him, it's with their mother.

Savvy_Sue

DairyQueen said:

I feel sorry for the OP's husband. He has been placed in a difficult position. It would have been far better had his late mum discussed her intentions with all of her children in her lifetime. His options:
- carry out the terms of mum's Will
- use a deed of variation to redirect a portion of his share to his sister.

Nether will solve the underlying problem as sister's beef isn't with him, it's with their mother.

Possibly. Alternatively that might have started this bad feeling in Mum's lifetime. I know there was no point discussing this kind of thing with my own parents. 

My mother's will explicitly said that if I or any of my siblings pre-deceased her, any grandchildren would NOT inherit that share. I don't think any of us were happy with that, but we knew there was no point discussing it with her - I tried once, but that was her position. (Mine was that it was bad enough to lose a parent, but to then be unable to benefit from a grandparent's will as a direct result of that death seemed cruel.)

My co-executor and I discussed it before she died, and agreed that if that situation arose we'd do a deed of variation, even if none of our other siblings agreed and it meant the pair of us giving up a significant % of our share. Some would say that we should have declined to act as executors if we weren't prepared to follow her wishes, and no doubt we'd have considered our position had it been necessary - but I suspect our surviving siblings would have fallen over themselves to agree with us! And that includes the ones without children of their own. 

Actually, on my father's death, my co-executor sent each of the grandchildren a small sum of money with a note to say that he was sure their grandfather would have wanted them to have something, even though there was no provision for this in his will. Which I am sure is true: but they had mirror wills, following my mother's wishes. You did not disagree with my mother lightly ... 

xylophone

The Testator had the absolute right to leave her property as she wished.
She has been entirely fair to her three children in leaving each 25% of the estate.
She loved her grandchildren - the OP states

 it has always been her and my FIL's wish to leave a decent sum to their 3 grandchildren to help them at this stage of their life rather than waiting until we die to inherit. 

However my SIL does not have children, my husband and I have 2 aged 21 and 24 and the other brother has 1 child aged 18. My SIL believes that she should receive 'her' third of the estate and wants my husband to give up 8.333% of his share as we are the ones with 2 children.

An absolute cheek, not to mention barefaced greed?

DairyQueen

Savvy_Sue said:

My mother's will explicitly said that if I or any of my siblings pre-deceased her, any grandchildren would NOT inherit that share. I don't think any of us were happy with that, but we knew there was no point discussing it with her - I tried once, but that was her position. (Mine was that it was bad enough to lose a parent, but to then be unable to benefit from a grandparent's will as a direct result of that death seemed cruel.)

Yes, only fair that bereaved grandchildren should inherit in their late parent's place. 

This has only happened once within my (large) extended family and my beloved late grandfather made a bit of mess of his attempt to address the issue. 

His eldest son died in WWII leaving one grandchild fatherless. When he wrote his Will in the 1970s, grandfather specified his children as equal beneficiaries and that grandchildren should inherit in place should any child predecease him. However, the Will specifically named his children. The names included his late son but omitted his surviving younger son. Grandfather simply made a mistake in naming the 'wrong' son in a particular clause in his Will. 

Family folklore is that the siblings intervened to prevent my uncle being inadvertently disinherited. I believe this was a handwritten Will (no copies) and not lodged with a solicitor. The story goes that the Will ended-up on a roaring fire in order that the rules of intestacy would apply. The estate was subsequently divided equally between the surviving siblings and the child of their late brother.

A lesson in why hand written Wills are a bad idea. 

Malthusian

Nothing is more guaranteed to create friction amongst the children of the deceased than an unequal distribution amongst the siblings, or the inclusion of grandchildren as significant beneficiaries if the grandchildren are unequally distributed amongst the children.

Nothing guaranteed about it. There are plenty of families where the beneficiaries with no or fewer children would be entirely relaxed with such a distribution. The beneficiary with no or fewer children may be in a secure financial position and be happy for their younger and less secure nephieces to benefit. Conversely, the child who has children could be a spender, and leaving money to the generation immediately below effectively disinherits the grandchildren; they will get nothing from either their parent or grandparent. Every family is different.

As a general rule I agree with the social and democratic consensus that the default position should be that estates are split between the children and then flow down to theirs in turn. Other things being equal, additional money to grandchildren where some children are childless gives an unequal split to the grandchildren, because not only do they inherit part of their grandparents' estate but their parents' on top. However, other things aren't always equal.

Family folklore is that the siblings intervened to prevent my uncle being inadvertently disinherited. I believe this was a handwritten Will (no copies) and not lodged with a solicitor. The story goes that the Will ended-up on a roaring fire in order that the rules of intestacy would apply. The estate was subsequently divided equally between the surviving siblings and the child of their late brother.

From the sound of it there was no need to light a fire as a DOV would have accomplished the same end - unless of course one of the siblings wasn't going along with this and was effectively defrauded. (In that scenario the right thing to do would be for the generous siblings to give up part of their share to your cousin, and let the less generous one keep their stinking money.)

Aranyani

DairyQueen said:

Hands up all the supporters of OP who don't have children?

*puts hand up and waves*

 👋 

thepurplepixie

Malthusian said:

Nothing is more guaranteed to create friction amongst the children of the deceased than an unequal distribution amongst the siblings, or the inclusion of grandchildren as significant beneficiaries if the grandchildren are unequally distributed amongst the children.

Nothing guaranteed about it. There are plenty of families where the beneficiaries with no or fewer children would be entirely relaxed with such a distribution. The beneficiary with no or fewer children may be in a secure financial position and be happy for their younger and less secure nephieces to benefit. Conversely, the child who has children could be a spender, and leaving money to the generation immediately below effectively disinherits the grandchildren; they will get nothing from either their parent or grandparent. Every family is different.

One of my children has come to me and expressed concern about 2 of my GC, due to parents splitting up and a real Disney wicked stepmother they knew that these 2 GC would probably miss out on any inheritance from their father.  I've considered various options, initially I thought I'd miss that son out and leave his share to the GC but I didn't feel comfortable with that so after talks with the other 3 children we have agreed that my son will receive less than his siblings and the remainder of what would have been his plus some from the others will go to the GC.  So I agree with you not all aunts and uncles would be upset by GC receiving something even if it is at their expense.  I have to say I am proud of them, particularly the one who brought it up and specifically said his kids were fine but it was the nephew/niece he was worried about.  I live in hope that the father of these children will wake up and recognise the damage he is allowing this woman to cause.  It is still fairly early in their relationship and I think he is beginning to see the light, I think part of it is due to having one failed marriage and not wanting to admit he made another mistake.

thepurplepixie

Aranyani said:

DairyQueen said:

Hands up all the supporters of OP who don't have children?

*puts hand up and waves*

 👋 

Another one who restores our faith in human nature.

DairyQueen

xylophone said:

The Testator had the absolute right to leave her property as she wished.
She has been entirely fair to her three children in leaving each 25% of the estate.
She loved her grandchildren - the OP states

 it has always been her and my FIL's wish to leave a decent sum to their 3 grandchildren to help them at this stage of their life rather than waiting until we die to inherit. 

However my SIL does not have children, my husband and I have 2 aged 21 and 24 and the other brother has 1 child aged 18. My SIL believes that she should receive 'her' third of the estate and wants my husband to give up 8.333% of his share as we are the ones with 2 children.

An absolute cheek, not to mention barefaced greed?

I know we disagree on this @xylophone. I do see the point about fairness inasmuch as the children have all been treated equally. However, I don't believe that greed is always, or even partly, a motivator. This is frequently about the relationships and culture particular to a family. Whether £500 or £5million the emotions are the same. This is about the relationship between the late parent and their children. 

For many families having any estate to leave is a relatively new thing. For my ancestors - ag labs, domestic workers and factory workers to a man and woman - making a Will would have been an anathema. Intestacy prevailed and the rules were specific and (certainly to them and to me) reasonable and fair.

Fast forward to the mid/late 20th century and home ownership and increased life opportunities meant that many families - for the first time - had an estate to distribute. My grandparents' generation had little to leave but what little they had was distributed according to the norms of their parents (i.e the rules of intestacy). Grandchildren neither received, nor expected to receive, anything directly from a grandparent unless their parent had predeceased. I doubt many people of my generation were the beneficiaries of grandparents' Wills and such a change in family norms would break a generations-long tradition.

A child of the deceased has the option to gift part of their legacy to their children if they wish them to benefit from grandparents' Will. There is no reason why OP's children must wait until she and spouse die. OP's spouse could pass on some/all of his share of his mother's estate to his children now if he wished. If he fails to do so, is that also considered 'greed'? But it is considered 'greed' if SIL is upset that part of her legacy is passed to her nephews/nieces by default?

Imagine a different scenario...

MIL's total estate had been equally shared between her three children. SIL had the benefit of her third of parents' legacy during her lifetime simply because she had no direct descendants to consider, unlike her brothers whose lifestyle choices included having children. Possible her nieces/nephews would inherit on her death and/or be recipients of generous gifts in her lifetime. That is certainly the norm within my family.

BIL and OP's spouse also each inherit one third and have the option to share as much/little with their children as they wish. OP's spouse could have passed the equivalent of 8.33% of Mil's estate to each of his children leaving him with a reduced share in favour of his children. BIL, in turn, could have done likewise. The outcome for each of the siblings would have been very different from the division of the estate as it stands. Each grandchild would have received the same 8.33%.  BIL would have received the same 25% but OP's spouse would have received a smaller share (16.67%), but only by virtue of his decision to share with his children. 

As things stand the sibs with children are relieved of the decision to share with their children. I doubt either would begrudge their own children but how would they feel if they were the childless sib?

Do the maths: OP's spouse/children have received 41.67% of MIL's estate. BIL and his child have received the same 33%. But SIL receives 25% as effectively OP's second child's bequest has been received from her share. I expect she loves her nieces/nephews and would feel differently had she been involved in the decision to gift part of parents' estate directly to the children of her sibs. Is she 'greedy' or just upset that she had no part in a decision that benefited OP's children at her expense?

I understand why a grandparent would wish to gift to their grandchildren but I believe this is best done during the grandparent's lifetime. Presumably MIL had that option. It is a very different scenario to leaving unequal shares between branches of a family. 

FWIW, I would prioritise my relationship with my sib over the money and offer her an amount equal to 8.33% from my share. I suspect that she may not accept it but may just wish to have her position recognised and be involved in the decision. She may wish to have the pleasure of 'gifting' some of 'her share' to the children.

It is difficult for those with children to understand how the childless feel in this situation but it is important to make clear to SIL that it could appear that OP's child has benefited at SIL's expense, and that perhaps MIL could have consulted before making this decision.

Empathy is important otherwise it is all about the money. What would OP's spouse rather have? A good relationship with his sister regardless of whether she accepts the offer? Or hold-on to the 8.33% and risk a permanent rift?

Whilst the wishes of the dead should be respected, sometimes those wishes are made without due thought for those that live-on. Children need as many loving relationships in their lives as possible, and that includes their aunts/uncles. Our siblings become the last-port-in-a-storm absent our late parents. Sibling relationships last longer than those we have with our parents and become more important as we age. We disrupt them at our peril.

-taff

DairyQueen said:

Hands up all the supporters of OP who don't have children?

Hands up here too.

And all of this is by the by. Anyone can leave their money anywhere and to anyone, so frankly, all this discussion of bad v good is totally pointless. It's her money, she can do what she likes with it.